This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

This is the common strawman where the freedom to impose your religion on other people is conflated with the freedom to practice your religion.

Another invalid comparison. Hobby Lobby did not advocate that those products be banned (though the owners may feel privately that they should).

Rather, the owners are simply decling to purchase certain lega products and then give them to other people. Ie Pornogrpahy is a legal product. Yet, I cant demand that my employer purchase it and then give it to me. Rather, I must either purchase it with my wages, or find somebody willing to provide it to me.

The Contraception policy was a presidential mandate, not a tax for the legislative branch.

So, yes, if a President ever decides to mandate that Buddhists need to buy ammunition and then deliver it to soldiers at a national guard armory, I bet they can refuse.

Hobby Lobby isn't directly paying for anything. They're paying for a portion of the insurance their employees own which by law must cover a minimum set of requirements among which are some which the owners of the piece of property known as Hobby Lobby disagree with.

Trying to say it's totally different because one is a tax and the other is (what is incorrectly stated as a presidential) mandate is laughable.

Another invalid comparison. Hobby Lobby did not advocate that those products be banned (though the owners may feel privately that they should).

Rather, the owners are simply decling to purchase certain lega products and then give them to other people. Ie Pornogrpahy is a legal product. Yet, I cant demand that my employer purchase it and then give it to me. Rather, I must either purchase it with my wages, or find somebody willing to provide it to me.

So you agree that you have a right to keep your property from paying for anything you find to be morally objectionable however indirectly that money is spent?

Wrong. Wavers for religious objections are routinely denied if the state has a compelling interest in doing so.

And would in normal peace time circumstance, the Supreme Cout say that the president has a "compelling reason" for mandating that buddhists or amish buy ammunition and then deliver it to the National Guard?

My guess is that they would easily see that the mandate would be far more about advancing a social agenda, then providing needed security.

Originally Posted by Mithros

So you agree that you have a right to keep your property from paying for anything you find to be morally objectionable however indirectly that money is spent?

No, not anything and definetly not under all circumstances (txes cannot generally be refused).

I am saying is that the whim of a President to mandate people to do "X" (buy and provide BC, ammunition, alcohol) against their will must be scrutinized- and usually rejected.

You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.

For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists? What's the legal difference? Tax revenues go into a fund which gets appropriated and then some of those appropriations go to something which people find morally objectionable. Hobby Lobby was required to pay for insurance essentially out of their employees wages which then went into a fund which could potentially pay for something which the owner of the company found objectionable.

Why does anyone have to pay for anything or do anything anymore?

You can find out why easily enough. Simply attach a note to your next tax return telling the IRS that you aren't paying 40% of the taxes. They will explain to you why you are wrong. If you disagree and can find a lawyer that won't mind looking like an idiot defending you, then you can sue them in court and then the court can tell you why you are wrong and maybe you'll understand it the way they tell you.

You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

No, because the state has a compelling interest in funding the military with taxes. A waver for religious objections would be denied. This sort of thing has come up many times before. No, you can't avoid paying income taxes because of your religious beliefs.

I think that was the drum beat Thoreau was marching to that got him in jail.

There just seems to be a a lot more chatter than necessary for a company
saying they will not provide morning after pills as part of their insurance.
It is not like Hobby Lobby is not covering traditional birth control methods.

Yup, that's exactly my take on it. Apparently these 4 forms of birth control not being offered in insurance (which they weren't until the ACA anyway) is a national crisis. I don't know....

Burwell v. Newland. Another government appeal. This case involved the Catholic owners of a Colorado heating and air conditioning company, who objected to all services under the mandate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying its decision when the Hobby Lobby case was before it, upheld the challenges of the owners and their company. Review denied.

Another:

Department of Health & Human Services v. Gilardi. This is one of the government appeals. It involved the Catholic brothers and their food service companies in Ohio. The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the brothers, in their capacity as owners, and their religion-based challenge to all forms of preventive services. Review denied.

And from the ruling itself, the final order:

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.

You can find out why easily enough. Simply attach a note to your next tax return telling the IRS that you aren't paying 40% of the taxes. They will explain to you why you are wrong. If you disagree and can find a lawyer that won't mind looking like an idiot defending you, then you can sue them in court and then the court can tell you why you are wrong and maybe you'll understand it the way they tell you.

Then you'll be happy to explain to me why it's different? Why is women's reproductive health care something that a business owner gets to object to, but military spending isn't? Or better yet, what about subsidies given to pork farmers? Should Jewish individuals be exempt from their tax dollars going towards that?